you're not willing to discuss a company changing its terms of service to take unclaimed bounties solely for the enrichment of the two founders, because you think the sector itself isn't worth your thought?
that's a "you" problem, and contributing to the problem you perceive, if people feel like they won't be individually criticized if they pivot to that sector.
another way to think about it is if we paraded the behavior of every incorporated business around as international news - like we do for the crypto space - you would be asking if there were any legit businesses anywhere. its a representation problem.
staying on topic: most blockchain companies do not change their terms of service to take unclaimed bounties solely for the enrichment of their founders. most are not in the business of bounties and that has nothing to do with whether you would find them "legit" or not.
there are plenty of blockchain organizations I find legit, typically the people asking these questions are looking for a fictional use case they never imagined of which they are the target audience, and view not being the audience as invalidating everyone else that is. its an impossible standard to entertain, its not interesting to watch the goalposts move of them debating why its not useful to them, instead of legit, instead of asking why other people find it useful and then catering to whatever frictions they currently encounter….. like every competitive market does
I'm asking out of curiosity, probably just like the other guy. If you know a few Blockchain organizations, which you find legit, you could have just listed them.
Many other organizations surrounding forks of Uniswap V2 they deployed on other EVMs
Coinbase
Fidelity
Blackrock
Metamask
Phantom
Thirdweb
OpenZeppelin
Multicoin
Hardhat
Paradigm and their support of Foundry
Avalanche Labs
WAGMI
BuildBear
Solana Labs
Messari
Elliptic
Chainanalysis
Custodia bank
There are many charts of segments the ecosystem.
I would say many of the labs+foundation organizations are functioning in a noneventful fine way around their protocols. Other bounty systems are functioning fine noneventfully. Research firms as well. Private equity and hedge funds. Other institutional financial firms. Teams maintaining battle tested protocols.
Its just such a bizarre question to me, with my lack of answer being seen as an indictment validating everyone else's own…. ignorance? Whats the standard for legit? This is an article about changing a terms of service unscrupulously. Most tech companies that are respected have granted themselves the right to do that, and we debate that specific company’s policy and their leadership as individuals. “Legit” would be seen as a juvenile question towards those companies as they do 100 different things, some well, some controversial.
Most of those above organizations are employers, some of the ones with tokens compensate comparatively to FAANGs or way higher if the token grants appreciated in value. They have good relationships with all their stakeholders and their mission or products for their community.
Hope it inspires other people to ask a more intelligent question at the same standard they do of other industries.
If you buy into crypto in the first place, Coinbase, Alchemy, and Edge and Node come to mind, as well as the Solana Foundation and Solana Labs, also the Ethereum Foundation.
that's a "you" problem, and contributing to the problem you perceive, if people feel like they won't be individually criticized if they pivot to that sector.
another way to think about it is if we paraded the behavior of every incorporated business around as international news - like we do for the crypto space - you would be asking if there were any legit businesses anywhere. its a representation problem.
staying on topic: most blockchain companies do not change their terms of service to take unclaimed bounties solely for the enrichment of their founders. most are not in the business of bounties and that has nothing to do with whether you would find them "legit" or not.